2009/1/28 Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage at sophia.inria.fr>
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 19:03 +0000, Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> > 1. It just occurred to me that the name StaticSpeedMobilityModel does not
> > make much sense; it really should be called ConstantSpeedMobilityModel
> (the
> > node is usually _not_ static with this model);
>> yes, probably, but I would estimate the cost of the name change for
> users to be higher than the gain in system readability. If you can
> convince our esteemed RM, I would be fine with it though.
>
I agree it is not that important. I guess I meant it more as a preamble to
why I did not choose the name StaticAccelerationMobilityModel.
-> http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=482
--
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert